They no doubt didn't bother to tell the voting public, as they thought (hoped!) we would vote to stay in.
I can't see any MP's trying to block this amendment.
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Theresa May 3
(1001 Posts)Very interesting article about T May. Forgive me if it's been posted before.
I think that the author is proposing that the Murdoch media have been superseded by the Daily Mail in setting the agenda for 'British' and that Theresa May is a product and perpetrator of its agenda.
www.opendemocracy.net/uk/anthony-barnett/daily-mail-takes-power-0
The Daily Mail takes power
Anthony Barnett 5 October 2016
After 25 years in politics Theresa May has no obvious connections to any think tank. She shows no interest in ideas. Asked by Conservative Home in a Quick Quiz session to choose between Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France” or Louise Bagshawe’s “Desire”, she replied, “I wouldn’t read either of them, sorry.” The prime minister who faces arguably the Kingdom’s deepest constitutional predicament since George III was driven from the Cabinet by the loss of the American colonies dismissed out of hand the idea that she might ever turn to the pages of Burke, even though as a student she had chaired a society named after him.
As the country faces an unprecedented concatenation of economic, strategic, diplomatic and constitutional uncertainty, the woman at the helm seems devoid of intellectual resources. The one decision she has definitely taken is to give the go ahead to Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, a boondoggle incapable of justification by any criteria of integrity. The Pharaohs built their own pyramids, Theodoric built his own mausoleum. But these were designed as monuments to generate the admiration of posterity. Surely only an idiot would make their first decision the go-ahead for a colossal radioactive tombstone to her regime.
But Theresa May should not be dismissed as an idiot. There is a striking and potentially formidable coherence to the general direction she has set for her new government, evidenced by the self-confidence of her ministers who remarkably quickly are singing from the same song-sheet. She does seem to have a clear ideology refreshingly different from her predecessors. Where has it come from?
The answer is The Daily Mail. On Sunday in her first speech to her party as its leader, she set out her view of Brexit and announced that she intends to trigger Article 50 to start the UK’s withdrawal from the EU before March. This was a moment of upmost gravity, to recognise and measure the immense divisions that have been opened up within the country, and consider the implications for the entire continent that Britain once helped liberate from fascism. Instead, her tone, brevity and apparent practicality were drawn as if directly from a Daily Mail editorial.
Intelligent comments section, too.
Politicians from ALL parties told us over and over how important it was to vote and that whatever the majority decided would be implemented.Now it is going to be implemented.The legal side of it made it advisory ( now that will have to be altered to make it legal and binding, so that it can be implemented.)
I've just read the link. Alan Renwick is not pleading for a second referendum. The article is an academic analysis about whether a second referendum would be politically feasible and lawful. I do wish you'd stop indulging in the post-truth fad. Journalists do the same thing, which is why public perception on issues is so often misguided.
No, Mair.
I asked if people had voted for the overriding of Parliamentary Sovereignty (which is a key part of our constitution) and if people had voted for an Oligarchy (which is unopposed rule by a 'few')
Responding to that question by saying 'we voted out' is completely meaningless. We know that. I'm asking if Leavers voted for the destruction of our system of Parliamentary democracy.
Here is Nigel Farage admitting it was advisory.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-nigel-farage-forced-to-admit-the-eu-referendum-was-only-advisory-a7401151.html
What does it matter Mair? You will not believe anyone - if one of the leaders of the Leave group told you it was true you would not believe them. Most people accept that is was advisory if only because it really doesn't matter any more. I have not seen anyone who carries any weight legally agree with you. Where do you want to take this? Is it some sort of Groundhog Day that you have to go on repeating the same arguments with nothing tangible to back them? You go on threads about any subject and take it off-subject and on to refighting the referendum. What on earth is the point other then boring people off the thread?
They are academics. They're not in danger of losing their jobs. It's their job to examine constitutional law and comment on it. Just because academic opinion is in conflict with your opinion, doesn't mean it's biased. It probably means that your view isn't unbiased.
Just because the public has a perception about something doesn't mean it's right. Very few people have detailed knowledge of constitutional law.
The public was told that it was taking back control of the UK's sovereignty from Brussels to Westminster ie Parliament. It must have realised that surely.
Alan Renwick - Head of the Constitution Unit retweets
Brexit has failed. Now we're on a charm offensive to persuade our former EU partners to let us back in.
Only a fool would consider these people to be unbiased.
And here he is again pleading for a second referenum - an academic political activist!
constitution-unit.com/2016/07/18/is-a-second-referendum-on-brexit-feasible/
The Constitution unit is a think tank at UCL which is a rabidly pro EU institution. They will have done their utmost to use the legal body to put barriers in the way of Brexit but their views are simply advisory too (although I accept probably very challenging to refute, thus not to be easily discounted).
However from the perspective of the public the referendum certainly was going to be acted upon, and the politicians all allowed the leaflet to be sent out making this promise.
May is abiding by the promise to act upon it. Maizie asked what people voted for, and here is the evidence they voted OUT , not 'for parliament to decide'!
Just think about it. Had the referendum been for parliament to decide it would have been pointless because we all know they would have voted remain!
I cannot believe someone is denying the advisory nature of the referendum yet again. This was produced before the referendum by the Constitution Unit - that is people who understand the legal ramifications of the constitution Mair. Now I am sure you think you know better than they do but they are seen as a respectable source.
"That is because, strictly speaking, it has no legal effect. It will be purely advisory and, in law, the government could simply ignore the result. In this it contrasts with the legislation for the electoral system referendum in 2011, which required the minister responsible to enact the result. But it is the same as the legislation underpinning the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 and, indeed, the referendum on membership of the Common Market in 1975."
Why are you continuing to argue the point Mair when the majority in government seem to be doing exactly what you want? You bring everything back to re-running the referendum.
constitution-unit.com/2016/01/19/what-happens-if-we-vote-for-brexit/
Certainly Welsh;
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
BTW DJ
Thats a very odd post quoting me! I wasnt addressing you nor did I suggest you have any knowledge of Swiss referenda. 
Nor do I know who 'Granjura' is - one would imagine a Gran living the Jura, from which I have just learned something new as I hadn't realised the Jura overlapped into Switzerland.
It also said in the government leaflet
"The UK is not part of the European border-free zone. We control our own borders."
So why did people vote to control our own borders?
Why do people still say we need to control our own borders?
It was only in the last week I saw about the 2010 bill - it must have been iProf Grayling's latest piece or similar - if I can find it I will do a link.
Can you post the referendum paper about being binding etc as we did not receive one of those.
I see Nissan have started back tracking about the Sunderland plant - I do hope this does not come about but it was the CEO Ghosn said it apparently.
'Personally I would like to see more referenda, as in Switzerland.'
Granjura lives in Switzerland. I have never claimed to know anything about Swiss referendums.
Parliament was told in the bill about the 2016 referendum that it would only be advisory.
However in putting out the pamphlet they promised to act according to our wishes, and that was unchallenged.
As for the 'turnout', firstly that was only a 'guideline' not a condition (I'd like to see your link to that info btw), and assuming you are correct, then the the time to challenge and agree this was before the referendum, and the public would have needed to be informed, so encouraging them to vote. This did not happen so it was axiomatic that normal majority voting was sufficient.
All this is mischievous nonsense by those who do not accept democracy, and would be ignored had Bremain won.
Sorry this isn't going with the flow of the discussion, but I object to being called a liar.
Ana I joined Gransnet in February 2013. I distinctly remember a poster who bombarded the site with quotes from the Daily Express and some very unpleasant websites before the referendum. I remember the username too.
Off again.
Parliament was told in the bill about the 2016 referendum that it would only be advisory.
However a law was passed by Cameron's Govt in 2010 that any referenda in UK could only be advisory because of the way Britain is Governed - if it were to be enforced certain criteria would need to be set out. This law came from an amendment from the House of Lords and was passed by both Houses.
The referendum did not fulfill any of the normal guidelines for referenda - 75% turnout etc etc.
People voted to advise parliament, Mair, not to instruct parliament.
Utter nonsense Varian. It was made absolutely clear that we would decide and not a single MP objected when Cameron ceded that decision to us.
From the Governments own pamphlet:
This is your chance to decide your own future and the future of the United Kingdom.It is important that you vote
The referendum on Thursday,23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.
This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.
It couldnt be clearer.
I expect that will be coming my way soon though .....hare krishna.
At least you've not suggested that TM is roses' 'guru' durhamjen! 
That was Granjura ( French) not the referendum.
There can, roses.
fullfact.org/europe/what-happens-if-parliament-rejects-brexit-deal/
People have been known to break their promises before, particularly Tory PMs.
What about Cameron's promise to have no topdown reorganisation of the NHS?
You do seem to stick up for TM rather a lot. Anyone would think she was your MP.
This discussion thread has reached a 1000 message limit, and so cannot accept new messages.
Start a new discussion
